Tennessee will criminalize moms who use drugs while pregnant

[sheilaincali]

May 1, 2014 10:48:24 GMT -5 justme said:

I find it interesting that all the Democrats voted for this bill...

My main question is, besides the baby being addicted to the drug, how do they know any such birth defect is directly related to drug use? There's a lot of "may do this" "may cause this", but there's no "3 doses of heroin causes X, 6 or more causes Y" to be able to explicitly say that drug use caused the defects. How about if it's a mental delay that doesn't show up until kindergarten? Do you retroactively go against the mom and throw her in jail? How about alcohol? Excessive consumption has a known consequence, FAS, so would that fall under this rule? Even though there's no known tipping point of causing it and someone could be drunk the whole pregnancy and not have a child with FAS?


It's one thing to have a baby that has heroin in its system, and then test the mother (and search her home/car whatever and most likely to find the drug), but it's a whole other to just arrest women based on problems babies are having that may or may not be related to drugs. How much would it suck if your kid was born with a defect, you've never done illegal drugs your whole life, and you're hauled off to jail because they think you did that to your baby? Ugh.

  All of this.  Yes.  That's what I'm trying to say.  It's way too difficult to accurate measure and predict the causes that the drugs have had on the baby.  Smoke pot once, before you are pregnant and when you kid ends up with ADHD or autism or whatever are they going to go back and find a pic of you with a joint on fb, do the math and retroactively charge you? 

Yes again- this is an extreme examples but these are the examples you have to consider when you start passing laws like this.

[Angel!]

May 1, 2014 10:55:21 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

It is unbelievably hard to get health for addictions & mental health issues (which are often the root of the addictions



You either have the choice of a state run program (if there is one) or a charity driven one which often have wait lists as long as your arm. Or you have the $20,000 a month treatment center with a spa where all the stars go.

 

 When ex was on the street and suicidal, it was a 3 month wait for a treatment program because he had no insurance....unless he had $18K, but even then it takes about a month to get in.  He was hospitalized several times during that period and every time they would hold him until he sobered up & then send him on his way.  One time I literally begged them to have him get psychiatric help & to hold him.  Their help was to give him a list of "resources" (see above description of the type of resources available) & sent him out the door.

A 1-3 month wait for help does no good for a pregnancy.  A wait like this is bad for anyone.  Ex was bi-polar, so by the time he would be able to get any sort of treatment he would be in a better place & decide he didn't need help after all.  So the cycle would start all over a few months down the road.

[whoisjohngalt]

OK, obviously I was wrong about availability of rehab facilities.

Then was is the solution?

[sheilaincali]

The first step of the solution is most likely to allocate more funding to treatment options, counseling, health care, etc. But instead they will spend money to prosecute these women (after the fact), send them to jail and drop the babies in the foster system.

Working to try to curb this problem is noble and a good thing. They are just going about it in what I consider to be an ass backwards manner. You charge them AFTER the baby is born and the damage to the baby is already done and you've doubled the problem because you have a criminal, drug addicted mother to house in jail and a drug addicted, possibly birth defected baby that could easily end up a ward of the state. Prevention before is a better option than punishment after.

[Deleted]

The answer is more money needs to be spent on the war on drugs.

[Deleted]

May 1, 2014 11:42:18 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

The answer is more money needs to be spent on the war on drugs.

do you just have a lot of time to kill every day?  do you ever respond with useful or helpful information or do you just like to throw out one-liners that are completely idiotic?

[Deleted]

May 1, 2014 11:21:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 1, 2014 10:55:21 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

It is unbelievably hard to get health for addictions & mental health issues (which are often the root of the addictions



You either have the choice of a state run program (if there is one) or a charity driven one which often have wait lists as long as your arm. Or you have the $20,000 a month treatment center with a spa where all the stars go.

 

 When ex was on the street and suicidal, it was a 3 month wait for a treatment program because he had no insurance....unless he had $18K, but even then it takes about a month to get in.  He was hospitalized several times during that period and every time they would hold him until he sobered up & then send him on his way.  One time I literally begged them to have him get psychiatric help & to hold him.  Their help was to give him a list of "resources" (see above description of the type of resources available) & sent him out the door.

A 1-3 month wait for help does no good for a pregnancy.  A wait like this is bad for anyone.  Ex was bi-polar, so by the time he would be able to get any sort of treatment he would be in a better place & decide he didn't need help after all.  So the cycle would start all over a few months down the road.

Half the time nobody (including Mom) even knows there's a pregnancy until long after the damage has been done.

[Deleted]

May 1, 2014 11:44:24 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

May 1, 2014 11:42:18 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

The answer is more money needs to be spent on the war on drugs.

do you just have a lot of time to kill every day?  do you ever respond with useful or helpful information or do you just like to throw out one-liners that are completely idiotic?

A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. 

[mmhmm]

May 1, 2014 11:21:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 1, 2014 10:55:21 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

It is unbelievably hard to get health for addictions & mental health issues (which are often the root of the addictions



You either have the choice of a state run program (if there is one) or a charity driven one which often have wait lists as long as your arm. Or you have the $20,000 a month treatment center with a spa where all the stars go.

 

 When ex was on the street and suicidal, it was a 3 month wait for a treatment program because he had no insurance....unless he had $18K, but even then it takes about a month to get in.  He was hospitalized several times during that period and every time they would hold him until he sobered up & then send him on his way.  One time I literally begged them to have him get psychiatric help & to hold him.  Their help was to give him a list of "resources" (see above description of the type of resources available) & sent him out the door.

A 1-3 month wait for help does no good for a pregnancy.  A wait like this is bad for anyone.  Ex was bi-polar, so by the time he would be able to get any sort of treatment he would be in a better place & decide he didn't need help after all.  So the cycle would start all over a few months down the road.

The availability of viable resources for the mentally ill and/or drug-addicted (including alcohol) is pitifully inadequate.  If we're going to throw money at something, that's one place it might just do some good!  We need more services for these people, and we need more treatment centers.

[mmhmm]

I've seen more of these little tykes than I'd ever have wanted to see. There's nothing worse than to watch a newborn struggling with FAS, or opiate addiction. It rips the heart right out of you.  I understand where they're coming from with this idea, but I don't think this is the right way to go about dealing with the problem.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I'd be all right with the law if TN was developing and funding a program to make sure these women actually get the help they need.

But what they are going to end up doing is creating another problem. Women need access to routine pre-natal care and they aren't going to get that while moldering in jail. It's also going to drive a lot of women underground out of fear.

So instead of helping these babies TN has set it up so they could compound the situation because now on top of being born addicted the kids have issues that could have been avoided if the mother had stuck to the prescribed routine.

I DO get where the lawmakers are coming from and there is a part of me that agrees with them. I just don't think they thought this through very far.

[hoops902]

::But what they are going to end up doing is creating another problem. Women need access to routine pre-natal care and they aren't going to get that while moldering in jail. It's also going to drive a lot of women underground out of fear.::

Yes, criminals will often take measures to avoid getting caught and convicted of their crimes.  That in itself isn't enough to make things legal.

[Angel!]

May 1, 2014 11:44:47 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

May 1, 2014 11:21:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

 When ex was on the street and suicidal, it was a 3 month wait for a treatment program because he had no insurance....unless he had $18K, but even then it takes about a month to get in.  He was hospitalized several times during that period and every time they would hold him until he sobered up & then send him on his way.  One time I literally begged them to have him get psychiatric help & to hold him.  Their help was to give him a list of "resources" (see above description of the type of resources available) & sent him out the door.

A 1-3 month wait for help does no good for a pregnancy.  A wait like this is bad for anyone.  Ex was bi-polar, so by the time he would be able to get any sort of treatment he would be in a better place & decide he didn't need help after all.  So the cycle would start all over a few months down the road.

Half the time nobody (including Mom) even knows there's a pregnancy until long after the damage has been done.

Good point. And if we are talking about those that have severe addictions and using very hard-core drugs, I'm am guessing the pregnancy was accidental most of the time, so they really aren't thinking about the possibility of pregnancy.

I think the solution is to work on the problem before it gets to this level.  More help for all those that need it, don't just focus on women that are currently pregnant.

[midjd]

May 1, 2014 12:13:12 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::But what they are going to end up doing is creating another problem. Women need access to routine pre-natal care and they aren't going to get that while moldering in jail. It's also going to drive a lot of women underground out of fear.::

Yes, criminals will often take measures to avoid getting caught and convicted of their crimes.  That in itself isn't enough to make things legal.

If the goal is truly to help the unborn avoid problems stemming from maternal drug use, past experience has proven that this law will have the opposite effect.

Compare it to a hostage situation. Do you tell the hostage-taker, "Turn yourself in now and we're going to prosecute you to the full extent of the law," or do you promise him/her a helicopter, a phone call to the media, an extra-large pizza, whatever it takes to get the hostage out safely?

[justme]

Ooh! How about making it a law that drug dealers have to pass out birth control with their goods! 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Yes, criminals will often take measures to avoid getting caught and convicted of their crimes. That in itself isn't enough to make things legal.

No it's not. I am saying the apparent whole goal of this is to protect the unborn child, not to punish the mother. If that is true then this law could royally backfire in their face and create more issues for the very thing they are trying to protect.

If the sole purpose is to punish the mother for doing something illegal then they've accomplished their goal.

But from the articles I read all this is allegedly being done for the good of the unborn child. Limited or no access to pre-natal care isn't what is best for the unborn child under any circumstances.

written.

[hoops902]

May 1, 2014 12:19:58 GMT -5 midjd said:

May 1, 2014 12:13:12 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::But what they are going to end up doing is creating another problem. Women need access to routine pre-natal care and they aren't going to get that while moldering in jail. It's also going to drive a lot of women underground out of fear.::

Yes, criminals will often take measures to avoid getting caught and convicted of their crimes.  That in itself isn't enough to make things legal.

If the goal is truly to help the unborn avoid problems stemming from maternal drug use, past experience has proven that this law will have the opposite effect.

Compare it to a hostage situation. Do you tell the hostage-taker, "Turn yourself in now and we're going to prosecute you to the full extent of the law," or do you promise him/her a helicopter, a phone call to the media, an extra-large pizza, whatever it takes to get the hostage out safely?

Right, but what people are talking about doing now is just making taking hostages legal, that way those that do won't be worried about being prosecuted and will just let them live.


You're comparing lying to someone about what you'll do for them when the reality is you're going to put a bullet in their head at the first opportunity, and legalizing their behavior.  I have no problem lying to these women telling them you won't turn them in...then doing it at the first opportunity.  That's the actual comparison to the hostage situation.  Tell them what they want to hear...that's fine.  That isn't the same as making taking hostages legal.

[midjd]

I have no problem lying to these women telling them you won't turn them in...then doing it at the first opportunity. That's the actual comparison to the hostage situation. Tell them what they want to hear...that's fine. That isn't the same as making taking hostages legal.

So what percentage of drug-using pregnant women do you think will fall for this after the first one is arrested?

This is one of those situations in which our current setup provides no easy answers. No, it is not good to make drug use legal. But until we have sufficient resources as a society to make addiction treatment cheap and easily accessible to everyone, IMO it is superior to prosecution (for this specific subpopulation).

[hoops902]

May 1, 2014 12:37:06 GMT -5 midjd said:

I have no problem lying to these women telling them you won't turn them in...then doing it at the first opportunity. That's the actual comparison to the hostage situation. Tell them what they want to hear...that's fine. That isn't the same as making taking hostages legal.

So what percentage of drug-using pregnant women do you think will fall for this after the first one is arrested?

This is one of those situations in which our current setup provides no easy answers. No, it is not good to make drug use legal. But until we have sufficient resources as a society to make addiction treatment cheap and easily accessible to everyone, IMO it is superior to prosecution (for this specific subpopulation).

That was my point, that the comparison wasn't really one that works in this situation.

The problem isn't drug use, the problem is child abuse.  And letting people off the hook for it because otherwise they might abuse their children more seems like a copout.

[midjd]

May 1, 2014 12:46:30 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 1, 2014 12:37:06 GMT -5 midjd said:

So what percentage of drug-using pregnant women do you think will fall for this after the first one is arrested?

This is one of those situations in which our current setup provides no easy answers. No, it is not good to make drug use legal. But until we have sufficient resources as a society to make addiction treatment cheap and easily accessible to everyone, IMO it is superior to prosecution (for this specific subpopulation).

That was my point, that the comparison wasn't really one that works in this situation.

The problem isn't drug use, the problem is child abuse.  And letting people off the hook for it because otherwise they might abuse their children more seems like a copout.

Legally it isn't child abuse until after the child is born... which is why abortion is legal and infanticide is not.

It's not "letting people off the hook because otherwise they might abuse their children more," it's giving them options other than prosecution in the hopes that they seek prenatal care and minimize the damage to the fetus.

Maybe the safe haven law would be a better comparison. Abandoning your infant (vs relinquishing for adoption) is a terrible thing, but better to leave him/her at a fire station than in a dumpster.

[The Captain]

May 1, 2014 12:37:06 GMT -5 midjd said:

I have no problem lying to these women telling them you won't turn them in...then doing it at the first opportunity. That's the actual comparison to the hostage situation. Tell them what they want to hear...that's fine. That isn't the same as making taking hostages legal.

So what percentage of drug-using pregnant women do you think will fall for this after the first one is arrested?

This is one of those situations in which our current setup provides no easy answers. No, it is not good to make drug use legal. But until we have sufficient resources as a society to make addiction treatment cheap and easily accessible to everyone, IMO it is superior to prosecution (for this specific subpopulation).

I'm not in favor of the lying part, but there could be a positive ripple effect if one is able to get treatment then others in the same circle may see the favorable impacts and get treatment as well.

In HS one of my BFF's was a mess.  Most of her friends were also a mess.  I was the only one she was friends with who didn't party hard, do drugs, drink, etc.

After she had her first baby our Junior year (and dropped out) I took her to PP to get on BC.  I was luckier than most in our little area and had access to a car that my parents would let me use.  Most of my friends (and her friends) didn't.  Before long several of her friends (whom I hardly knew) were asking if I'd give them a ride as well to get BC. Once they saw (and heard) from my friend (someone they trusted) that their parents weren't told, and there was no cost or judgement, they were willing to give it a try.

[Virgil Showlion]

It's a curious bill in that it's fundamentally an issue of surveillance.

Possession of illegal drugs is already subject to stiff penalties. The significance of this bill is that it allows the (ill) health of the baby to constitute proof of its mother's illicit drug use. Hence unless the penalties for drug-use-while-pregnant are significantly harsher than those for drug possession, one could reasonably argue that the bill is simply authorizing a new form of government surveillance.

The intent is obviously to drive addicted mothers into treatment. And of course the biggest risk is that mom will choose drugs over baby and terminate the pregnancy. I have to agree with several posters here that the latter outcome seems far more likely than the former. If the prospect of irreversibly damaging one's child isn't sufficient motivation to come clean, how likely is it that after-the-fact legal action would tip those scales?

I'd take a carrot approach rather than a stick approach. Divert whatever funds would be spent incarcerating drug-addicted mothers into expansion/promotion of low-cost rehabilitation programs, and emphasize the importance of coming clean. That also gets rid of the unsettling new surveillance.

[hoops902]

May 1, 2014 9:58:53 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

This is going to be interesting. It will mean that doctors are going to have to report women who they suspect are addicts, which violates HIPAA.

Alternatively, those women who ARE addicts are not going to get any prenatal help whatsoever and they're going to wind up with an even worse problem.

There's a very simple way around this, you don't have to report at ALL about the women who are pregnant.  The law is not about harming a fetus, the law applies to INFANTS who have been harmed by mom's drug use.  That means the reporting doesn't happen until the child is born.  I'm not a doctor, but I'm going to guess there's already a mechanism in place to report children that a doctor sees who appear to have been abused.  The doctor doesn't have to determine mom is on drugs at all.  The doctor just has to determine that the child in question has been abused (or whatever term you want to put into place) and then report it, I assume as a mandatory reporter.

[Phoenix84]

I don't know.

A woman who abused her children would be thrown in jail for child abuse, I don't see how being extremely neglegent during pregnancy would be any different if the kid was born with all kinds of drug related problems.

But on the other hand, DramaQ makes a good point that treating it as a crime may have the uintended consequence of driving drug addicts underground instead of seeking help for their addiction and proper neo-natal care.  Which in turn may increase the incidence of problems associated with drug use during pregnancy.

So I'm torn.

[Wisconsin Beth]

May 1, 2014 11:27:57 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

OK, obviously I was wrong about availability of rehab facilities.

Then was is the solution?

I don't know.  Better access to birth control to known drug addicts? 

[Wisconsin Beth]

May 1, 2014 11:44:47 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

May 1, 2014 11:21:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

 When ex was on the street and suicidal, it was a 3 month wait for a treatment program because he had no insurance....unless he had $18K, but even then it takes about a month to get in.  He was hospitalized several times during that period and every time they would hold him until he sobered up & then send him on his way.  One time I literally begged them to have him get psychiatric help & to hold him.  Their help was to give him a list of "resources" (see above description of the type of resources available) & sent him out the door.

A 1-3 month wait for help does no good for a pregnancy.  A wait like this is bad for anyone.  Ex was bi-polar, so by the time he would be able to get any sort of treatment he would be in a better place & decide he didn't need help after all.  So the cycle would start all over a few months down the road.

Half the time nobody (including Mom) even knows there's a pregnancy until long after the damage has been done.

That's a good point MPL.  My daughter will be 6 on Sunday.  I didn't know I was pregant until I was about 7 weeks along.  The 1st four weeks included me drinking wine and continuing to take my birth control pills.  Thankfully, my daughter seems like a relatively normal kid. 

[Deleted]

So, who is paying for this now... 

[sheilaincali]

I've known women who still were having regular menstrual cycles and didn't know they were pregnant until they were in the 4 months along range. Weird yes but it happens. Look at that whole "I didn't know I was pregnant" show. Most don't find out until they are in the 6 to 8 weeks pregnant time frame so there is still the potential for engaging in potentially harmful activities. Sushi, alcohol, unpasteurized dairy, rollercoasters, etc.

[justme]

Speaking of safe haven laws...wonder if this will cause an uptick in babies left outside the fire station. Drop the kid off there, no questions asked, so mom can't be found when they take the baby to the hospital and find out it has drugs in its system.

[Bob Ross]

If I lived in TN, I'd be more concerned about spittin' and pluckin' my banjo.